HOMOSEXUAL WEDDING – JUDGMENT OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS COURT OF STRASBOURG – FRANCE Unanimously, the World Court of Human Rights has established, verbatim, that “there is no right to homosexual marriage.”

The 47 judges of the 47 countries of the Council of Europe, which are members of the full Court of Strasbourg (the world’s most important human rights court), issued a statement of great relevance that has been surprisingly silenced by information progressivism and its area of ​​influence. In fact, unanimously, the 47 judges approved the ruling that “there is no right to homosexual marriage.”

The sentence was based on a myriad of philosophical and anthropological considerations based on natural order, common sense, scientific reports and, of course, positive law.Within the latter, in particular, the judgment was based on Article 12 of the European Convention on Human Rights.

This is equivalent to the articles of human rights treaties, as in the case of 17 of the Pact of San José and nº 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In this historic but not disclosed, Resolution, the Court decided that the concept of family not only contemplates “the traditional concept of marriage, that is, the union of a man and a woman”, but also that they should not be imposed on governments to “obligation to open marriage to persons of the same sex”.

As for the principle of non-discrimination, the Court also added that there is no discrimination, since “States are free to reserve marriage only to heterosexual couples.”

****It is important and absolutely necessary to spread this kind of news because governments and sympathizers of such lobbies will not want people to know. Help spread if you want! Obviously, it does not interest the media to publicize this news.

Mr Secretary General,Ladies and Gentlemen,
I am pleased to welcome you, Mr Secretary-General and the leading executive officers of the Agencies, Funds and Programmes of the United Nations and specialized Organizations, as you gather in Rome for the biannual meeting for strategic coordination of the United Nations System Chief Executives Board.It is significant that today’s meeting takes place shortly after the solemn canonization of my predecessors, Popes John XXIII and John Paul II. The new saints inspire us by their passionate concern for integral human development and for understanding between peoples. This concern was concretely expressed by the numeous visits of John Paul II to the Organizations headquartered in Rome and by his travels to New York, Geneva, Vienna, Nairobi and The Hague.

I thank you, Mr Secretary-General, for your cordial words of introduction. I thank all of you, who are primarily responsible for the international system, for the great efforts being made to ensure world peace, respect for human dignity, the protection of persons, especially the poorest and most vulnerable, and harmonious economic and social development.The results of the Millennium Development Goals, especially in terms of education and the decrease in extreme poverty, confirm the value of the work of coordination carried out by this Chief Executives Board. At the same time, it must be kept in mind that the world’s peoples deserve and expect even greater results.

An essential principle of management is the refusal to be satisfied with current results and to press forward, in the conviction that those gains are only consolidated by working to achieve even more. In the case of global political and economic organization, much more needs to be achieved, since an important part of humanity does not share in the benefits of progress and is in fact relegated to the status of second-class citizens. Future Sustainable Development Goals must therefore be formulated and carried out with generosity and courage, so that they can have a real impact on the structural causes of poverty and hunger, attain more substantial results in protecting the environment, ensure dignified and productive labor for all, and provide appropriate protection for the family, which is an essential element in sustainable human and social development.

Pope Visit

Specifically, this involves challenging all forms of injustice and resisting the “economy of exclusion”, the “throwaway culture” and the “culture of death” which nowadays sadly risk becoming passivelyaccepted.With this in mind, I would like to remind you, as representatives of the chief agencies of global cooperation, of an incident which took place two thousand years ago and is recounted in the Gospel of Saint Luke (19:1-10). It is the encounter between Jesus Christ and the rich tax collector Zacchaeus, as a result of which Zacchaeus made a radical decision of sharing and justice, because his conscience had been awakened by the gaze of Jesus. This same spirit should be at the beginning and end of all political and economic activity.

The gaze, often silent, of that part of the human family which is cast off, left behind, ought to awaken the conscience of political and economic agents and lead them to generous and courageous decisions with immediate results, like the decision of Zacchaeus. Does this spirit of solidarity and sharing guide all our thoughts and actions?

Today, in concrete terms, an awareness of the dignity of each of our brothers and sisters whose life is sacred and inviolable from conception to natural death must lead us to share with complete freedom the goods which God’s providence has placed in our hands, material goods but also intellectual and spiritual ones, and to give back generously and lavishly whatever we may have earlier unjustly refused to others.Theaccount of Jesus and Zacchaeus teaches us that above and beyond economic and social systems and theories, there will always be a need to promote generous, effective and practical openness to the needs of others. Jesus does not ask Zacchaeus to change jobs nor does he condemn his financial activity; he simply inspires him to put everything, freely yet immediately and indisputably, at the service of others. Consequently, I do not hesitate to state, as did my predecessors (cf. JOHN PAUL II, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42-43; Centesimus Annus, 43; BENEDICT XVI, Caritas in Veritate, 6; 24-40), that equitable economic and social progress can only be attained by joining scientific and technical abilities with an unfailing commitment to solidarity accompanied by a generous and disinterested spirit of gratuitousness at every level. A contribution to this equitable development will also be made both by international activity aimed at the integral human development of all the world’s peoples and by the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the State, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.

Consequently, while encouraging you in your continuing efforts to coordinate the activity of the international agencies, which represents a service to all humanity, I urge you to work together in promoting a true, worldwide ethical mobilization which, beyond all differences of religious or political convictions, will spread and put into practice a shared ideal of fraternity and solidarity, especially with regard to the poorest and those most excluded.Invoking divine guidance on the work of your Board, I also implore God’s special blessing for you, Mr Secretary-General, for the Presidents, Directors and Secretaries General present among us, and for all the personnel of the United Nations and the other international Agencies and Bodies, and their respective families.

Ordinarily, when a public official faces a crisis of conscience, the cause is either a change of responsibilities or a change of heart. Suppose a building inspector is asked to approve construction under a new code, and he firmly believes that the new buildings will be unsafe. If he cannot convince his superiors to amend the code, he should resign; he cannot carry out his responsibilities in good conscience. Or suppose (to use an example borrowed from a friend) an executioner experiences a religious conversion, and decides that capital punishment is immoral. He too should resign; he cannot carry out the duties for which he was hired.

Kim Davis cannot, in good conscience, certify that two people of the same sex are eligible for marriage. It is perfectly reasonable to argue—as Ryan Anderson has persuasively argued—that the courts should find some accommodation, so that she can preserve her integrity and yet homosexuals can obtain marriage licenses. Indeed, as I write this little essay, I learn that Judge Bunning, who sent her behind bars, has now ordered her release, provided that she no longer interferes with the process of issuing licenses. But that does not resolve the problem, in my view.

Imagine that you teach arithmetic in an elementary school. Imagine that a few misguided individuals take control of the local school committee, and push through a nonsensical new curriculum that makes it more difficult for students to learn the basics of math. You can complain, you can work to elect more sensible people to the school committee, but as long as the new curriculum is in force, you have to choose: comply with your new job description, or resign.

But now imagine that the school committee, drunk with power, rules that henceforth you must teach students that 2+2=5. You cannot do that. Moreover, you cannot meekly step aside and allow some other, more compliant teacher to tell young children that 2+2=5. This is not a matter of preference or of personal belief. It’s a matter of fact.

Kim Davis was asked to certify that two men, or two women, could be appropriate partners in a marriage. She could not, because to do so would contradict what she knew—what you and I know, what everyone has known for centuries—about the nature of marriage. Nor could she allow her deputies, working under her direct supervision, to testify to an untruth.

Let’s begin with the word “marriage.” This word means the union of a man and a woman for the purpose of begetting, raising, and educating their children in a home. If an “arrangement” between two human beings cannot instigate or beget a human child, it is not a marriage. If we insist on calling it a “marriage,” we speak equivocally. That is, we lie to ourselves about what is.
The word “belief” is not the appropriate word for marriage. Marriage is a fact, not a “belief.” To imply that it is a “belief” means, in modern context, that it has no grounding in reality. It is improper to call marriage a “belief.”

Virtually every newspaper account of the confrontation in Kentucky has made the point that Kim Davis is a Christian. That is true but irrelevant. It is not because of her religious faith that Davis understands the nature of marriage. Non-Christians, too, have always understood (until the mania of the past few years) that marriage is a union of man and woman. That understanding was firmly in place long before the time of Christ.

If a court can redefine marriage, it can redefine any institution touched by the law. If the term “marriage” means no more or less than what five justices happen to prefer at the moment, then the most fundamental institution in society is at risk.

Are you really married, or could the state suddenly declare your union invalid? Could the government take custody of your children, having ruled that there is nothing special about the bond between parent and child?

With the Obergefell decision the Supreme Court overthrew not only the laws of the several states, but the laws of logic as well. In a blatant display of illegitimate power, five justices ordered not merely a redefinition of “marriage” but a redefinition of reality. And to date, no one but Kim Davis has actively resisted that usurpation.

The drama of the jailing of Kim Davis is just a fraction of the forms of persecution that have manifested against Christians who oppose gay marriage in the past few years. Will it decrease or increase with the promotion of homosexuality? Here are some examples

FREE SPEECH AND DISCRIMINATION DUE TO RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Christian fired for refusing sex therapy to homosexual couples.

“The next hearing will be this Thursday, when Christian relationship counselor Gary McFarlane will appeal his firing for refusing sex therapy to homosexual couples. Last week, Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin lost her appeal to wear a crucifix around her neck in hospital wards.”

“‘It was my own personal comment on my own personal time on my own personal computer in my own personal house, exercising what I believed as a social studies teacher to be my First Amendment rights,’ Buell told Fox.”

“Chris Patton, a communications officer for the school system, told Fox there was concern about how Buell might treat gay students in his class. He also disputed the notion that the comments were private.
“He has [more than] 700 friends,” Patton said. “How private is that–really? Social media can be troubling if you don’t respect it and know that just because you think you are in a private realm–it’s not private.”
He vowed Buell will not return to the classroom until “a thorough job of looking at everything–past or previous writings” is complete.

School suspends a black woman who objected to the idea that homosexuality is a civil right.

“The University of Toledo has taken action against an administrator that has aroused concern over free speech violations. The victim is the school’s associate vice president of human resources, Crystal Dixon, who wrote to a local newspaper in response to an article that claimed homosexuals to be victims of civil rights abuses. In the letter, Dixon, who is black, objected to the article’s claim that homosexual civil rights are being trampled on. In her view, civil rights and homosexuality do not fit into the same box.”

Matt Barber of Concerned Women for America is outraged that the University of Toledo would suspend her over the letter . . . the entire incident is “inappropriate and has a chilling effect on free speech.”

Texas School punishes Christian teen for voicing his opinion against homosexuality.

“An honors student in Fort Worth, Texas, was sent to the principal’s office and punished for telling a classmate that he believes homosexuality is wrong . . . Dakota was in a German class at the high school when the conversation shifted to religion and homosexuality in Germany. At some point during the conversation, he turned to a friend and said that he was a Christian and ‘being a homosexual is wrong.’ ‘It wasn’t directed to anyone except my friend who was sitting behind me,’ Dakota told Fox. ‘I guess [the teacher] heard me. He started yelling. He told me he was going to write me an infraction and send me to the office.’”

University removes Christian from counseling program due to his belief that homosexuality is immoral.

Article Titled “Is Discrimination Against Christians Legal?” 7/20/2010. “A federal judge has ruled in favor of a public university that removed a Christian student from its graduate program in school counseling over her belief that homosexuality is morally wrong. Monday’s ruling, according to Julea Ward’s attorneys, could result in Christian students across the country being expelled from public university for similar views.”

“The plight of Lance Corporal Monifa Sterling seems unbelievable–a member of the Armed Forces criminally prosecuted for displaying a slightly altered passage of Scripture from the Old Testament: “No weapon formed against me shall prosper. Sterling, who represented herself at trial, was convicted February 1, 2014 in a court-martial at Camp Lejune, North Carolina after she refused to obey orders from a staff sergeant to remove the Bible verses from her desk . . . The Christian Marine was given a bad conduct discharge and a reduction in rank from lance corporal to private. ”

“Police are searching for the culprits who threw concrete bricks through the door and windows of a Christian facility in Illinois as it prepared for a banquet for a group dedicated to exposing the homosexual activist agenda . . . LaBarbera notes that a left-wing website with a letter from a group of homosexuals taking credit for the attack warns that more will follow if the host site for the banquet does not disassociate from its featured speaker, Scott Lively, and AFTAH.

“Homosexual activists are pressuring PayPal to not handle donations made to groups that promote traditional values . . . Founder Peter LaBarbera [of Americans for Truth About Homosexuality] refers to it as “homofascism in action,” as it asks people to stop financially supporting Christian groups, which the homosexual activists refer to as “hate groups.”

“PayPal officially states that its users “may not use the PayPal service for activities that [ . . . ] promote hate, violence, racial intolerance” but PayPal has become a favorite payment service for anti-LGBT extremists all over the world. PayPal must act immediately to shut down their accounts and ban all sites that promote anti-LGBT hate.

“Stern says if the early cases are any guide, the outlook is grim for religious groups. A few cases: Yeshiva University was ordered to allow same-sex couples in its married dormitory. A Christian school has been sued for expelling two allegedly lesbian students. Catholic Charities abandoned its adoption service in Massachusetts after it was told to place children with same-sex couples. The same happened with a private company operating in California.”

The band The Dire Straights song “Money for Nothing” banned due to word “faggot”.

“The Dire Straits hit ‘Money for Nothing’ can now be played in Canada after a ban for its use of the word ‘faggot’ was lifted. The song from the 1980s was pulled from radio playlists in January after just one unidentified listener complained about the use of the slang word for homosexual.”

The Oregon bakers who were ordered by the state to pay $135,000 for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding have designed and baked custom cakes to send to a handful of the most powerful LGBTQ advocacy groups along the West Coast, The Daily Signal has exclusively learned.

The effort is an attempt by Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, to show the LGBTQ community “we really do love you.”

“They might just throw it in the garbage,” Melissa told The Daily Signal. “They can do that, it’s OK. My hope is that they will see the feeling behind it, and just maybe understand.”

The Kleins, who have since been forced to close their storefront since the legal battle following their decision in 2013 to not bake a cake for a lesbian wedding, said they were inspired to bake these cakes after learning about the upcoming fiction film, “Audacity,” which tackles the issue of homosexuality from a Christian perspective.

Because of their Christian faith, the Kleins don’t support same-sex marriage. But they say that doesn’t mean they can’t still love those who choose to live that lifestyle.

“I’m not asking anybody out there to change their beliefs and believe the way I do,” Melissa said. “I’m just saying they want to live their life freely and I also do, too.”

The Kleins are sending cakes this week to 10 different organizations where they can ship from their home in Sandy, Ore., including the California LGBT Arts Alliance, Asian and Pacific Islander Wellness Center, Californians Against Hate, CFAC Headquarters, Equality California, Out and Equal, The South Bay LGBT Community Organization, The LGBTQ Center Long Beach, Los Angeles LGBT Center McDonald/Wright Building and LGBT of Southern Nevada.> Read full story in Dailysignal